Judas and the Betrayal of Christ

Question
#1:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I was reading this verse in Matthew: "When Pilate saw that he was
getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water
and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this mans
blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered,
'His blood is on us and on our children!' " (Matthew 27:24-25)

Does this verse mean that every Jewish person is responsible for
Jesus' death?

It seems to me to be a "loaded question" (with a loaded "rider" at
the end). Paul is a Jew  and Peter, and John and all of the other
eleven genuine disciples. None of them are the least bit guilty. Nor our
Lord's mother, a Jew, nor Mary Magdalene, nor Joseph of Arimathea, nor
any of the other believers of the time  and what about the vast
majority of Jews of that day who were not present at Jerusalem, or were
not at this mob scene, or were under-age, or did not join in the mob
sentiment or take this "oath"?

Our Lord could have prevented His crucifixion, calling in "legions of
angels" to support Him, as he says. But as He also told Peter when Judas
and the soldiers came to arrest Him, "But how then would the Scriptures
be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" (Matt.26:54 NIV).
Without our Lord going into the darkness on the cross and being judged
for every single sin in human history, none of us could be saved. So if
anyone is "responsible", it would have to be everyone of us, because
"all sin" (Rom.3:23).

It is also important to remember that when dealing with historical
matters, the Bible accurately records what happened. That does not mean
that the Bible endorses everything that happens when it records
historical events, or even that everything everyone says in scripture is
true or accurate or a prophecy. The book of Acts, for instance, is
replete with examples of genuine believers doing and saying things which
are at best problematic (e.g., the misguided and unauthorized "election"
of Matthias as an apostle when only Christ has the right to choose His
apostles  and He chose Paul, of course, not Matthias). We have
something of that here. Scripture does not say that Pilate is innocent
of wrong-doing (cf. 1Cor.2:8), or that the crowd whipped up by our
Lord's religious enemies were damned as a result of this horrific action
(it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some later became
believers, as many in Jerusalem did at the first Pentecost of the
Church). We do know that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is that
of rejecting our Lord and His saving work. Paul was certainly "guilty"
of all manner of horrific crimes, and crimes against believers at that.
But of course he is not only saved; he is the greatest of the apostles.
So I would prefer to answer in Paul's words:

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to
those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his
kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not
persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft
them in again.
Romans 11:22-23 NIV

Ever since I was a young girl I have wondered about the 2 staves and
the 30 pieces of silver in Zechariah 11. I know that Zechariah was
prophesying about Jesus and the Tribulation. But I hope you can shed
some light on Beauty and Bands and is the 30 pieces of silver mentioned
so that anyone who claimed to know the Torah would know who this prophet
is speaking about?

And Judas should have understood this.

Thank you for your help in my bible studies,

Glory be the my Lord Jesus Christ,

Response #2:

Good to hear from you. Zechariah 11 is a panoramic prophecy of the
entire future history of Israel. As such, it is not immediately obvious
in terms of its particular applications, even though some generalities,
such as the rejection of God's will generally and the consequences of
that rejection, would have been clear to all. This is often the case
with Old Testament prophecy, and one of the best parallels I can mention
are the parables of our Lord which likewise were not meant to be
patently obvious to all, and needed rather to be explained  but only
were to those who were interested in the explanation. God often works in
this way, offering more than enough truth to all to make the point that
all truth is available  and a means of explanation to those who seek it
so as to find it; but for those who are not interested in the truth He
allows them to leave it hidden and unrevealed. Isaiah 53 is another
famous prophecy along these lines which like Zechariah 11 contains much
that will only be open to those who accept Jesus as the Messiah, and
much that is more clear once it has been fulfilled. As it says in 1st
Peter 1:10-11, "the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to
you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out
the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was
pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories
that would follow". You can find out more about the interpretation of
Old Testament prophecy generally at the following links:

As to the meaning of Zechariah 11, it is somewhat complicated, and as
I have translated and explained this whole passage elsewhere, I would
invite you to have a look at that detailed explanation contained at the
link:
"Zechariah 11:4-17". As you very correctly say in your question,
this passage is talking about both Jesus and the Tribulation, so that
there is dual application of many of the features of this prophecy. The
two staffs, which I translate as "delight" and "bindings", refer in
general to the joy available to all in having a salvation relationship
with God through Jesus Christ (anticipated in the Old Testament), and
the restoration of the nation of Israel as God's covenant nation under
our Lord when He returns. So the two staffs straddle the first advent
and the Church Age which follows it and move all the way to the second
advent (and indeed it was the case in Old Testament prophecy that
distinguishing between the two advents was
a mystery
before it actually
occurred; see the link).

The 30 pieces of silver are likewise dual in their application
referring to the rejection of God in Jesus Christ before His death for
us during His first advent, and also to the rejection that will take
place of the restoration ministry that precedes His second advent,
carried on by
the two witnesses, Moses and Elijah (see the link for the
details).

Finally, as to what may or may not have been known or knowable by
Judas, the key limiting factor for all human beings in their
relationship with the Lord or lack thereof is not one of knowledge or
experience, but of willingness to know the truth. While not everything
was knowable about the Lord's first coming before He came
(1Pet.1:10-11), still and all there was more than enough truth revealed
to bring all who desired it to saving faith and great spiritual growth 
as, surely, the lives of great believers such as Job, David and Daniel
make abundantly clear. So, yes, anyone who had devoted his life to the
truth of the Word of God would have seen fulfillment of the various
aspects of this passage in the coming of the true Messiah and His
rejection by those to whom He came.

But as to Judas and his generation, they saw so much more. They saw
Jesus in person. As John says, "We have seen his glory, the glory of the
one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth"
(Jn.1:14 NIV). They saw Jesus heal the sick, give sight to the blind,
turn water into wine, walk on the water, cause a single loaf of bread to
suffice for thousands . . . and raise the dead (on more than one
occasion). And more than that, they heard Him speak words of truth that
could only be from God (cf. Jn.7:46). If they were unwilling to receive
these witnesses from the Father, the interpretation of Old Testament
prophecy would have been unlikely to move them. After all, there are
many among the Jewish people today who know the Tanakh very well, and
yet have convinced themselves that the true Messiah is yet to come. As
in almost all things of importance in life, the issue is not one of
knowledge, but one of faith and free-will. Judas and his contemporaries
chose not to receive Jesus as their Messiah for a variety of reasons.
God gave them more than enough information to see the truth, but also
just enough distance to be able to choose what they really wanted to
choose.

So it is always in life. The heavens proclaim the glory of God, but
He graciously leaves enough "maneuver room" for our free will so that we
can make a genuine choice about whether or not to serve Him who made
them or ourselves. For those who choose for Him in Jesus Christ, He
makes available all the truth we really want, if we but seek it so as to
find it. For those who do not, He makes it possible for them to harden
their hearts as hard as they wish until they have turned truth upside
down and dwell in utter darkness. For such people, as with Judas, no
illumination of scripture is going to be sufficient to turn them from
their desired course.

I thank God for His mercy towards you and me and our brothers and
sisters in Jesus for making the truth of our Savior shine clearly in our
hearts unto life eternal!

Hope all is well with you and your ministry. I've read several
attempts from theologians and bible students trying to equate what 30
pieces of silver in Judas' day would amount to in USD today. I've heard
$16, $600, $120, and many other conversion attempts and they all differ.
I gave up and decided to asked myself that if anyone knew, you would be
the one. The reason why this question came to my mind was because I
wanted to know the amount of money Jesus was betrayed for, and I also
thought about the many ways people (and even some Christians at times)
deny Jesus at times too and how much they feel He is worth in their
lives. Bible passages such as carrying our cross and losing our lives
for His sake came to mind. I heard a sermon on martyrs and how some
"Christians" were tested by other Christians posing as enemies of Christ
to put the other "Christians" to the test on how much they were willing
to do for Jesus. They pointed guns at their heads and ALL of the
professing Christians backed out and denied Jesus when their life were
on the lines. The sermon ended by saying that if one is not willing to
"live" for Jesus then there's no way that they can die for Him. And I
truly believe this with all my heart. It troubles me when I see so many
nominal Christians living their lives as if Jesus meant nothing to them.
This is why I dropped out of churches. I didn't drop out of churches
because I thought I was better than them, but because the people there
only brought me down and hindered my walk with the Lord. I sought after
Christians who were wise in their walk with God and help me grow
spiritually. Sorry for going off on a tangent. I'm thankful to have a
brother in Christ (you) that I can correspond with that knows and
teaches sound doctrine. From my experience, bad doctrine in churches and
Pastors not rightly dividing the Word of Truth leads to sheep going down
the wayward path. Thank you for all your help in your replies for they
have richly blessed me.

God Bless,

Response #3:

Good to hear from you, my friend. Matthew is the only gospel to
identify the amount of the silver, and he only says "thirty [pieces]"
(fulfilling thereby Zechariah 11:12-13). Obviously, since we are not
told the weight or denomination of the silver, we can only guess. We do
know that it was apparently a small enough amount to fit into a bag so
as to be able to be cast by Judas back into the temple (and light enough
for him to be able to do so), but this is not much to go on. If by
"thirty silvers" (the literal Greek), we are to understand one the most
common of the silver currencies of the day in that place, the shekel,
then we may be a little closer to guessing the weight. Pinning down the
shekel is also not an easy thing except in relative terms, but scholarly
opinion suggests it weighed the same as about four drachmas, an
Attic/Greek measure which also varied by time and place, but is not
unusually half an ounce in weight. That would make each one of the
"silvers" two ounces, and thirty pieces would then weigh sixty ounces or
somewhat less than four pounds. At today's prices for silver, that would
be around $1,700 dollars. That is not really helpful, however, since our
modern economy is so much different from that of the ancient world
(e.g., there were no "I-Pads" for sale). A drachma is commonly figured
(by people who make it their practice to calculate such things) to be
equivalent to a day's wage for an unskilled laborer (note that the
workers in the parable of Matthew 20 each receive a denarius, roughly
the Roman equivalent to the drachma in terms of its value). So if thirty
shekels equals 120 drachmas, we would have then about four months pay at
the standard rate for labor. I suppose in our society that would be
somewhere around ten thousand dollars, give or take. This is probably
something like the correct figure: an amount that might tempt a greedy
person, but one that is still low enough, even though substantial, to
make anyone with scruples think twice about the bribe. As you note, this
is a good point of comparison for all us to see just how much we really
value Jesus in our lives. Those of us who really do "walk the walk" as
well as "talking the talk" would not trade the smallest part of His
truth for all the money in the world  let alone betraying Him and
throwing away our eternal life in the bargain! We are looking to our
eternal reward.

As to your feelings about "church" and "sermons", I can only say that
I heartily agree. We Christians are here on this earth to serve Jesus
Christ in the correct way. At some point, if what passes for Christian
fellowship is really a dishonor to Him, should we not "vote with our
feet" and search for something better? Would that every place that
called itself a "Christian church" taught the truth of the Word of God
accurately, and did so as its primary focus and purpose of existence.
Would that at least a goodly number did so. But the situation we have
here in the latter days of Laodicea is that there is hardly a "church"
out there where the Word of God is taught at all, and where a Christian
can even be safe from serious doctrinal error. In such a situation, the
really honorable thing to do, it seems to me, is not to give into
personal guilt and the guilt-trips that lukewarm brothers and sisters
are only too happen to dole out by asking "Where do you go to church?"
or "Where are you a member?" or "What denomination do you belong to?",
but rather to stand fast with the truth, to walk firmly forward with
Jesus, to serve His true Church, those who belong to Him, in the way He
would have us to do, and to rejoice in whatever genuine provision of the
truth our dear Lord graciously provides. New wine does not travel well
in old skins. At some point, we have to stop compromising for the sake
of appearances or out of guilt-feelings with what is tainted and/or
thoroughly unhealthy, and determine instead to cleave to what is truly
good, when we have eaten and tasted that it really is genuinely "good".

I have always appreciated your straightforward and "guileless"
questions. I consider it a privilege that you have continued with this
ministry, and want to let you know that you are always welcome here.

Thanks for the link. I am happy to see the author comes to the same
conclusion most conservative scholars embrace, namely, that 33 A.D. was
the date of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. However, I
come to this date by some of the alternative methods he alludes to here,
not from anything astronomical. The "eclipse" that happened on the day
Jesus was crucified lasted for three hours and produced total darkness 
within which time the sins of the world were judged in His body. So this
was no normal celestial phenomenon of the sort that can be tracked or
predicted. Rather, it was a miraculous event (in the same that the "sun
standing still over Gibeon" in Joshua chapter ten was a miracle)  and
fittingly so since the whole of history is founded on those three hours
on the cross.

Thanks for your prayers.

Your pal in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question
#5:

Greetings Bob Luginbill,

I just wanted to send you a courtesy email informing you of a "Holy
Thursday" view of Jesus' Crucifixion. I understand that your time is
limited, so I really don't expect a response, though one would be
welcomed if time permitted.

In this understanding I provide twelve visual timelines in the free
"Twilight Report", of that most Holy Week, with God's Word visually seen
from each timeline. Also provided is an explanation of the three
critical errors that the ecclesiastical authorities commit in their
current understanding of Holy Week chronological events. These critical
errors do not apply to my understanding.

More prophesies were fulfilled during that Holy Week than are
currently understood. God's Blessings to you.

http://www.paschallambministries.com

In Christ's Service,

Response #5:

I did have a brief look at your website (which, technically speaking,
is quite nicely done, and much nicer than mine!). I am certainly aware
that there is a Thursday theory  as well as a Wednesday theory. I
wasn't able to locate the article dealing with the three errors you
mentioned here (unless these are in the video  no time for videos,
sorry).

I did find one critical error that may adversely affect the whole
which you may want to address. At one point in your blog you suggest
that there was a solar eclipse on the day of our Lord's crucifixion. I
am no astronomer, but it is my understanding that a total eclipse can
only last a few minutes, but we know that the supernatural darkness on
that day lasted three hours (e.g., Lk.23:44). This was not a predictable
event. This was the hand of God (and thus cannot be used for dating or
chronology in any way). This is also a very important issue  far more
so than the exact day of the week of the crucifixion  since it was
during those three hours that our Lord suffered and died (spiritually)
for the sins of the entire world (see the link: in
BB 4A: The Spiritual
Death of Christ).

Yours in the One who died for us all, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question
#6:

G'Day brother!

Another question; do you believe Judas Iscariot was a true believer
before he turned?

God Bless

Response #6:

Given that our Lord says early on, "Have I not chosen you, the
Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (Jn.6:70 NIV), I think there is no
question but that Judas never had saving faith.

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question
#7:

Hope your keeping well. Please if you can read through this small
link below about Jesus being an apostate believer and let me know what
your thoughts are.

Love In Christ

Response #7:

Good to hear from you. For some strange reason this question is
making the rounds lately. How serious Christians can think that a man
whom Jesus called "a devil" (Jn.6:70) and "the son of perdition"
(Jn.17:12)  the man who betrayed our precious Lord  could ever have
been a believer is, frankly, beyond me. What I really find astounding is
that some people have taken up the cause of defending Judas "once saved"
status as a kind of crusade! As you know, I am much opposed to the "once
saved, always saved  no matter what" school of theology. But going to
the non-biblical extreme of pronouncing Judas a one-time believer just
to make this point strikes me as so ridiculous on the face of it that it
undermines the entire truth that some believers do turn apostate. In any
case, it is not scriptural to claim that Judas ever believed. The Bible
never declares Judas a believer; Christ does call him "a devil" and "the
son of perdition". The Bible also declares that he was "a thief"
(Jn.12:6). And all of these designations have the ring of observations
about his confirmed and long time status (rather than being the result
of some sort of recent fall from grace). It is also important to note
that we have not a single indication from the scripture that Judas
"changed" at any point. He seems always to have been a prim and proper
type who seemed "nice" but had a darker side under his white-washed
exterior. In fact, his self-righteous demeanor was such that when he
left the last supper after Christ's declaration of His impending
betrayal, none of the other disciples even suspected the traitor was
him.

The main argument in this article is the one commonly advanced, to
wit, that since Jesus sent out the disciples two by two to cast out
demons et al., Judas must have been a believer. That is a whopping jump
of logic. First, Judas is never said to have actually gone out, never
said to have actually ministered to anyone, never said to have cast out
a demon or anything of the sort. There are dozens of ways I can think of
on the fly as to how this particular point of scripture can be squared
with Judas not being saved, but no way to square the direct statements
about Judas with an imagined, prior genuine belief. Judas is the
archetypical hypocrite. He saw Jesus as offering earthly advantages,
exploited those advantages as best he could by theft, and betrayed our
Lord just as soon as it became clear that things were not working out 
from the worldly point of view. It is important that the Lord chose him,
and not just to fulfill prophecy. Judas stands for all the
self-righteous wolves in sheep's clothing who seem to the world to be
"the best Christian leaders", but in many cases are not even saved, and
are merely exploiting the sheep who are foolish enough to be impressed
by their outward appearances.

Privilege to see the letter from your friend thank you. Do you think
that Judas is a good example of Hebrews 6:4, since he tasted the
heavenly gift in regards to being sent out by Jesus to heal the sick and
raise the dead? He turned away from the Lord and was unable to be
restored.

Hebrews 6:4, on the other hand, presents a picture of believers who
have had the Holy Spirit poured out upon them (that is my reading of the
language here). Paul is talking specifically about his audience, the
Jewish believers in Judea and especially in Jerusalem, who were given
the gift of the Spirit but who are now on the verge of apostasy because
of their compromise with the old religion. He is reminding them of how
they were once red hot for the Lord but are now experiencing the cooling
off of their faith, and is warning them against allowing the process to
go all the way the dead end.

It is a fair point though. Judas saw many amazing miracles  and
consider what he saw our Lord do personally! As an unbeliever, he would
have had no way of accomplishing this aspect of the ministry the Lord
sent the disciples out on. Maybe that is one reason why Jesus sent them
out in twos.

Your friend forever in Jesus Christ our Lord,

Question
#9:

Hi Bob,

With respect to your question/answer on was Judas Saved - I
completely agree with you He most certainly was NOT. (Mk. 14:21 & Jn.
17:12). However, this begs the question was Judas EVER Saved?

The entire Passage of Matt. chpt. 10 seems to reveal Judas in a
positive SAVED condition at THAT POINT IN TIME. In fact in Matt. 10:20
Jesus declares God is the Father of Judas, as well as the other 11
disciples referred to by Jesus in His comments just BEFORE He sent them
forth to minister His work.

Likewise, if Jesus bestowed the Power of the Holy Spirit upon Judas
as a SINNER to preach the Gospel, heal the sick, cast out devils,
cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, etc., then Jesus contradicted His
own teaching in Matt. 10:26, Matt. 7:18, Mk. 9:39, et. al.

Meanwhile, to bear the name of The Son of Perdition for a final act
of defiance and betrayal of Jesus, hardly recommends proof that Judas
was ALWAYS The Son of Perdition from the very day Jesus chose him as one
of His 12 disciples. Neither does the fact that Jesus KNEW beforehand
that Judas would betray Him support the notion that Judas was ALWAYS a
SINNER.

Is there a Scriptural answer to these questions absent speculation?

Is Judas grammatically included in the "THEM" of Jn. 17:12? Some
translations use BUT (1508) some IF (1487)...?

John 17:12 (KJV) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those
that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but/if the
son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Response #9:

I've been getting this question a lot lately, though your phrasing of
it is original and very good. However, let me state from the outset my
belief that Judas was never a believer. Let's first dispense with John
17:12. I know of no versions using "if" here to contrast Judas with the
other eleven. Some use "but"; some use "except". Either of those words
is an acceptable English equivalent for the Greek phrase ei me (ei
alone does mean "if", but when followed by me means "if not" or
in cases where there is no true conditional as here "except/but").

Matthew 10 is somewhat trickier. It is true that Matthew 10:5 tells
us that our Lord sent out "these twelve", and it is possible that this
includes Judas. However, it is also possible that Judas did not go.
Firstly, we are not told specifically that he did go or that he did
participate in all of the activities ascribed to the others. Were he not
a believer even then, obviously it would have been pointless for him to
go except for appearances sake. If he had gone out only for appearance's
sake, this would not contradict Matthew 10:5 in any case (and his
"partner" could have done whatever miracles and evangelizing were
necessary to do). Secondly, it is possible that he didn't go because he
was the "administrative disciple". He was the one who held the common
purse, so there would have been an argument for him remaining "at H.Q.",
at least for most of this mission time. Also, the term "the twelve" is
sometimes used even when there aren't actually twelve, that is, as a
term of office rather than a literal description of the number (e.g., a
"triumvirate" is still an official position even if one of the three
members dies). For example, all of the following passages occur after
there are no longer twelve and before the call of the actual twelfth
apostle, the apostle Paul:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the
disciples when Jesus came.
John 20:24 NIV

. . . and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
1st Corinthians 15:5 NIV

And besides Jesus calling Judas the "son of perdition" (which seems
like proof to me because it describes him generically as if it were
always so), there are other indications that Judas was never saved in
the first place:

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of
you is a devil!"
John 6:70 NIV

Our Lord's language seems to indicate that Judas did not become bad
at some point (i.e., He does not say "one of you became a devil after I chose you" or something
similar), but was always so.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all
things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have
followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel.
Matthew 19:28 NIV

Jesus' prediction here does not, of course, include Judas (Paul is
the twelfth), so that the "you who have followed Me" while it must have
seemed at the time (and may still seem from context) to include Judas in
fact cannot. This is the vein in which I would understand Matthew 10 and
other passages.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray
him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the
poor? It was worth a year's wages. He did not say this because he cared
about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag,
he used to help himself to what was put into it.
John 12:4-6 NIV

Again, the language here indicates to me that this is what Judas
"was". That is, he did not become a thief at some point during Jesus'
ministry but was always such.

There are good reasons for why an unbeliever would have been chosen
as one of the twelve. First, to fulfill the scriptural predictions of
Christ's betrayal, but also to illustrate the important principle that
not all who seem to be "of us" really are. In fact, just as Judas was
the last person the other disciples thought might be the traitor
(suspicion didn't even fall on him when he left the last supper right
after Jesus' words to him), so it is the case today that sometimes it is
the most squeaky-clean and righteous appearing individuals who are
really not part of Jesus Christ. This is, in my experience and
observation, disproportionately the case with "wolves in sheep's
clothing"; that is, high-profile "pastors" who are really only in it
"for the fleecing" . . . in the tradition of Judas. Judas saw a good
opportunity and made the most of it, right to the end (or so he
thought). Even to unbelievers, it was clear that Jesus was "something
special", and Judas no doubt saw our Lord as a good "meal-ticket" with
the potential of something more down the road (cf. Jn.6:26). When it
became clear that this hope wasn't going to pan out the way he
anticipated  in fact, directly after Jesus praised the "wasteful use"
of the myrrh  Judas decided to "cash in his position" and sell out our
Lord for whatever he could get. This, is seems, was his attitude from
the start, consistent with an unbeliever acting the part of a believer
entirely for the sake of personal gain.

Finally, our Lord seems not only know but to identify Judas' unbelief
very early on:

"Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known
from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would
betray him.
John 6:64 NIV

Feel free to write me back about any of the above.

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question
#10:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your kind and scholarly response.

Allow me to respectively say right up front that the majority of your
supposition is based on personal speculation.

Thus, regarding the "IF" vs. "BUT" respective of Jn. 17:12 - this
"IF" version is found published in J.P. Greene Interlinear, ISA
Westcott-Hort and http://biblos.com/john/17-12.htm, and most likely
others as well.

The greek ei followed by the greek 'me' used in Jn. 17:12
translated as two different words IF NO is stated to be a CONDITIONAL
#1487 followed by a NEGATIVE PARTICLE #3361  however, the KJV uses the
singular greek CONJUNCTION ei me #1508.

Meanwhile, I agree with your supposition that the term the "Twelve"
can be used even when there is not actually Twelve present. However, in
this particular instance the Twelve are specifically named in Matt.
10:2-3 and Judas is indeed among those named Twelve that are SENT forth
by Jesus.

Moreover, with respect to Jn. 6:70 Jesus refers to Judas in the
PRESENT TENSE as a "devil". However, that present tense "IS" was at a
much latter point in the ministry of Jesus well past His initial
choosing of Judas as one of His original Twelve disciples. This by no
means validates that Judas was ALWAYS a SINNER.

Likewise, when Jesus called the lost Judas the "Son of Perdition" was
at the time just prior to His betrayal by Judas - some 3 1/2 years AFTER
His original choosing of Judas as one of His Twelve disciples.

For example, if I buy a new car today I KNOW that at some point in
the future that is will FAIL me and become JUNK. However, that does not
qualify me to suggest that the new car I have just purchase is JUND
today or even ALWAYS Junk. Hence, it will only be decreed as JUNK at
some point in the distant future when it FAILS. Thus, the case of the
FALLEN TRANSGRESSOR Judas.

Respective of Matt. 28:19 - where does it say in that context of
Passages that Judas HAD NOT FOLLOWED Jesus up to that specific point in
time? Moreover, if we are going to base our entire supposition on some
special meaning of the word FOLLOWING as the perquisite for sitting upon
one of the 12 Thrones - the man who will actually sit upon one of those
12 Thrones in the seat of Judas as his replacement is Matthais, who was
said to have COMPANIED with them from the beginning of the ministry of
Jesus, and according to Acts 1:25-26 was chosen by lot to take the
apostleship and ministry (one of the 12) of which Judas FELL by
TRANSGRESSION. Matthias was declared to be numbered AMONG the Eleven
Apostles making him number Twelve.

Acts 1:26 (KJV) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon
Matthias; and he was numbered with[among] the eleven apostles.

Please note, Scripture does not say that Matthais was numbered among
the other mass of Believers but rather he was numbered AMONG the ELEVEN
APOSTLES. Moreover, in Jn. 12:4-6 we are once again seeing Judas at a
point in time in the ministry of Jesus and far from his original
choosing as one of the original 12 APOSTLES (disciples) of Jesus.

However, the elephant in the room is if we suggest that Judas was
ALWAYS lost then Jesus contradicted His own teaching in Matt. 10:20 &
25, Matt. 12:26, Matt. 7:18, Mk. 9:39, et. al.

Jesus declared to Judas, as one of the TWELVE APOSTLES, just BEFORE
sending him forth to do his miraculous works by the Holy Spirit in Matt.
10:20, that God was his FATHER (remember Judas had just been named by
name as being among the TWELVE that was sent out by Jesus).

Matthew 10:5 (KJV) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them,
saying, ...20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you.

Also, in Matt. 10:25 Judas was of the "spiritual" HOUSEHOLD of Jesus
as were the other Eleven APOSTLES.

Likewise, in Matt. 12:26 Jesus declared Satan could NOT cast out
Satan...Although, Jesus had just given Judas the power of God in Matt.
10:1 to cast out devils.

Matthew 12:26 (KJV) And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided
against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Jesus declared in Matt. 7:18 that a corrupt tree CANNOT bring forth
good fruit...If Judas was ALWAYS a corrupt tree then how did he do the
good works?

Moreover, Jesus taught that NO man could speak lightly of Him and do
miracles...Judas did miracles as one of the SENT FORTH TWELVE.

Mark 9:39 (KJV) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man
which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

With respect to Matthais being the 12th APOSTLE vs. Paul...

On the day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus...

Acts 2:14 (KJV) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his
voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at
Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Paul was not even in the picture at this particular point. The first
mention of Saul is Acts 7:58 at the stoning of Stephen. The first
mention of Saul/PAUL with Jesus is Acts 9:4.

Response #10:

Respectfully, in my considered view the Matthias angle is a "rabbit
hole". Peter and co. chose him by lot  a practice never authorized in
the NT  and did so before the Spirit was given on Pentecost. He is
never heard from again, and we know from Revelation and elsewhere that
there are only 12 apostles, not 13  and Paul is most certainly not left
out. For more on this see the links:
"Matthias and the Numbering of the
Twelve Apostles" and
"The Apostles and the Jerusalem Council". The one
point I will repeat about that here, since "numbering" is something you
find persuasive, the Greek actually has not syn-psephizo, but
syn-kata-sephizo, which, according to usage and etymology,
ought to mean, "was condemned (kata) by the vote
along with the others". In other words, the Spirit is testifying that
the "election" was of man, not of God (even if the versions are not
willing to take the Greek at face value). Compare Luke 22:3 where Judas
is described as being "of the number of the twelve", a
phrasing designed to show that he was not actually one of the twelve,
just considered by appearances to be so.

As to Acts 2:14, as I mentioned earlier, this is a title
(sometimes they do say "the eleven" when one of the "twelve" is
mentioned specifically). It does not mean that Matthias
was an apostle in God's eyes (which he was not).

While the Bible does call Judas "a devil" (Jn.6:70), "the son of
perdition" (Jn.17:12), and "a thief" (Jn.12:6), the Bible does not
call Judas a believer. In my view, therefore, it is far more speculative
to believe the latter over the former.

On ei me, I do have a doctorate in Greek, and I can assure you
that this phrase means "except/but"; it cannot mean "if" alone.
Interlinear versions are notoriously problematic when it comes to this
sort of thing, namely, being forced to choose between translating
individual words, phrases, and words and phrases in context. They really
don't work with Greek which is not a word-order language in any case.
They can be helpful for those who do not know Greek, but they have to be
used with care (it is not as if they were the authoritative "last word",
especially given their inherent limitations).

As to Matthew 10, there are dozens of ways the statement can be true
without making Judas a believer (e.g., we are not told that he actually
did what he was told, or went at all, or did miracles, etc.). That is
not the case with the three declarative statements listed above.

As to "is", well, what was our Lord supposed to say? "One of you was
not a devil but became a devil and now is a devil"? If Judas were not
always a devil (or "the son of perdition"), I would expect Jesus to have
phrased this much differently. But what about "thief"? It seems clear
that Judas did not become a thief under the influence of our Lord's
ministry. He did not just steal once. He was always a thief  a their
"by profession"  and that is the way he is presented. The most natural
and unassuming way to take all three passages is as generic descriptions
which are timelessly applicable. If they were new developments, there is
nothing at all in scripture to suggest it.

As to "following", this clearly must include salvation (e.g.,
Matt.4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 10:38; 16:24; etc., etc.).

Finally, the notion that "Jesus contradicted His own teaching" is
incorrect:

"You are the salt of the earth"
Matthew 5:13 NIV

Were all who heard these words saved? Not at all. This truth only
applied to those who were. As our Lord says

"and you are clean . . . but not all of you."
John 13:10

Here Jesus qualifies  but only because He is only a few hours away
from being betrayed. He did not always qualify, nor should we expect it.
I am afraid that if we don't take into account that our Lord (and the
Bible) makes true statements all the time  which however do not help or
apply to any unbelievers who are receiving them  the interpretive
disaster across all of scripture will be enormous.

Finally, one reason why I am so adamant about this is that in my view
this issue has been springing up all over the place because anti-OSAS
types are looking for an argument. This is the wrong one. First, because
it is not true. But, secondly, because from an apologetics point of view
it is the worst possible ground to stake out I can imagine. That is the
case because the notion that Judas might have been saved but lost his
salvation is so offensive, prima facie flawed, and impossible to prove,
that it is likely to have exactly the opposite of the intended effect:
it is likely to confirm OSAS-ers that they are right and we on the other
side are have no idea what we are talking about since we are so clearly
"crack-pots"  rather than getting them to carefully re-examine their
incorrect position. There are plenty of passages which teach the
possibility of apostasy for believers without trying to make Judas into
one.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question
#11:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your kind and prompt response. I DO AGREE with you
COMPLETELY regarding the greek "ei me" it is to be understood as BUT,
EXCEPT, UNLESS, etc.

Meanwhile, regarding Matthias if his choosing by the Apostle is a
"rabbit hole" then the PRAYERS prayed to God by the Apostles immediately
before they cast their lots also did not go up to God BUT went down into
this same said proverbial "rabbit hole".

Acts 1:23-24 (KJV) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas,
who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou,
Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two
thou hast chosen,

In my opinion, if these men were indeed praying unqualified and
unanswered prayers to God at this point, on an issue so Scripturally and
eschatologically critical, then we need to dismiss any and all of their
further teachings. Meanwhile, the mention of Peter and the Eleven in
Acts 2:14 follows the then most recent choosing of Matthias in Acts
1:24-25.

Moreover, respective of Matt. chpt. 10 it is completely irrelevant as
to whether or not Judas actually went out. The FACTS are Jesus
"equipped" Judas, at the very onset of Matt. 10:1, with the SAME
identical Spiritual POWER to do all of the described miracles, just as
he did the other Eleven Apostles.

Matthew 10:1 (KJV) And when he had called unto him his twelve
disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out,
and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Likewise, Judas heard the SAME identical instructional dialogue
BEFORE the sending forth of the Apostles as did the other Eleven
Apostles - hence, Matt. 10:20 "...YOUR FATHER will, give you what to
speak in that hour..."

Therefore, it does not matter whether Judas actually went out or not
- he was EQUALLY EQUIPPED to do so, just the same as the other Eleven
Apostles were instructed and Spiritually equipped to go forth.

Meanwhile, seeing that Judas as a suggested SINNER (child of the
devil) was BESTOWED the POWER to "cast out devils" by Jesus, does indeed
contradict Matt. 12:26, et.al., and the teaching of Jesus Himself -
whether Judas actually cast them out or not is irrelevant - he was given
the POWER to do so by Jesus.

Matthew 12:26 (KJV) And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided
against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

However, as far as Jesus was concerned Judas indeed was SENT FORTH
with the Twelve Apostles, BUT if Judas actually hid himself out and did
not go this is only speculation.

Matthew 10:5 (KJV) These twelve Jesus sent forth...

In my opinion, there is a vast amount of evidence that Judas was NOT
ALWAYS a SINNER from the time that Jesus choose him as one of His 12
disciples - but actually became one.

Thus, this brings me back to my original question - Does the English
grammar construct of Jn. 17:12 support the fact that Judas was equally
GIVEN to Jesus from God and included in the "THEM" of this Passage,
along with the other Eleven Apostles?

Response #11:

1) It is a commonly misunderstood but critically important
hermeneutic principle that historical books in the Bible accurately
relate what people did without necessarily endorsing what they did. That
is particularly true of the book of Acts (the obvious examples are
numerous), and I think that the failure to understand this principle has
caused more doctrinal confusion in the Church than perhaps any other
(especially when it comes to cases like this which are not as obvious).

Unbelievers pray all the time. And believers sometimes pray the wrong
way and for the wrong things. And without the Spirit, prayer was not as
effective as it has since become. Further, there is a very important
"tell" here that confirms the wrongful nature of what these genuine
believers did on this occasion: they gave God two options! This is like
flipping a coin and saying, "Dear Lord, if it comes up heads, then I
will marry Jane, but if it comes up tails, I will marry Sally, so please
make sure it comes up according to your will!" That's great  except
what if God doesn't want this person to marry Jane or Sally? That is
exactly the situation we have here. Jesus Christ picked the 11 and Judas
(to fulfill prophecy et al.)  and Jesus Christ picked Paul as the
actual and eternal twelfth. The disciples were not authorized to pick a
replacement apostle; they took that upon themselves. And that is why
scripture actually says (in the Greek) that they were "voted down" by
the Lord along with Matthias who was not our Lord's choice.

2) Just because they were wrong here does not mean that the epistles
of Peter, for example, are not divinely inspired. David wrote Psalms
through the Holy Spirit. He also committed adultery with Bathsheba and
had her husband murdered. The latter was wrong as wrong can be, but that
does not mean his Psalms are not holy scripture.

3) I gave you my answer on Acts 2:14 previously. It's not any sort of
conclusive evidence  for one thing because according to scriptural
usage Matthias might not even have been present when our Lord gave the
original commission (there is no evidence he was).

4) On Matthew 10:1, I still don't think this necessarily includes
Judas, given Greek and Hebrew usage when it comes to collectives (see
the link:
"The Hebrew word for all"). However, even we do wish to assume
that it did include Judas as actually receiving such temporary gifts,
well, we know from Acts 19:12 that even handkerchiefs which had touched
Paul had the capacity to do these very same things, namely, drive out
demons and cure diseases  if that is true of a handkerchief touched by
Paul, it might well have been true of Judas who would then have been
empowered by our Lord even if Judas were not a believer (after all,
handkerchief's don't believe either). It is also true that God sometimes
uses fallen angels in a similar way (see the link:
"God's employment of
evil spirits").

5) The three passages calling Judas "a devil" (Jn.6:70), "the son of
perdition" (Jn.17:12), and "a thief" (Jn.12:6) are descriptive of his
status. They invite anyone reading them to expect that such he always
was, and there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that this status
was the result of some sort of fall following his call. Since the time
for such a major change of apostasy was relatively short (John 6:70
occurred over a year before the crucifixion so Judas was definitely
already lost at this point), the burden of proof remains on those who
want to make Judas a quondam believer to demonstrate from scripture some
indication of a change. "Thief" is particularly significant in this
regard. It is hard to imagine a scenario wherein Judas was a believer
but then lost his salvation and became a thief. The passage read
naturally indicates that this is what he always was  a thief by
profession  whereas even assuming a fall into apostasy doesn't explain
this description. Why did that hypothetical fall cause him to become a
thief? Plenty of pious unbelievers are not criminals.

6) The last passage you ask about, John 17:12, provides perhaps the
most telling indication of Judas' status as "once an unbeliever and
stayed an unbeliever": Judas "perished" because he was "the son of
perdition". Both the verb and the noun are from the same root in Greek
so that a better way to get this across would be to translate "none of
them is damned except the son of damnation . . . in order that scripture
might be fulfilled". The Hebrew phrase "son of" gives us an innate
categorization. I.e., the Israelites are "the sons of Israel" meaning
that such is their natural heritage. John and James are "sons of
thunder", meaning this is the natural characteristic they possessed. It
may not be decisive, but it is a very strange thing to call Judas if his
status as an unbeliever were the result of recent backsliding. Please
note: Jesus does not say that He "lost" anyone, even though He does say
that He Himself guarded the eleven who were given to Him by the Father.
For these reasons, I think we cannot say that because the text says "of
them" that Judas necessarily was saved. Because once we commit to that
interpretation, then I see no way that Jesus' words "I kept them and
guarded them and none of them perished" would not be contradicted. There
are also no exceptions made earlier in the chapter (which by the
application of the same logic should mean that Judas was still saved
just a few verses earlier):

"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They
were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they
know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them
the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty
that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for
them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me,
for they are yours."
John 17:6-9 NIV

Since the above identifies
all those "given" to our Lord by the
Father as saved, I think we have to leave Judas out of "those You have
given Me" in John 17:12 since he was not saved. Perhaps that is why the
queen of the manuscripts, Sinaiticus, has a stop at this point, leaving
"apart from the son of perdition, etc." to stand alone as an aside. So I
think that it is not only possible but preferable to understand the
first part of the verse as an emphatic statement referring to the
eleven, with the second part added as an explanation but not meant to be
understood as including Judas with the rest in the first part.

Judas was never saved, even though he put on a good appearance. In
the near future, the entire world will be deceived by one who not only
does the same but actually will claim he is Christ. Perhaps for that
reason the beast receives the same identical designation in scripture as
Judas does, one that in antichrist's case certainly does
reflect an inveterate status:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come
unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.
2nd Thessalonians 2:3 NKJV

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question
#12:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your kind and scholarly response. Please allow me to
say right up front that you have based your entire supposition of both
Matthias vs. Paul and Judas being ALWAYS a Sinner on "SPECULATION".
Meanwhile, your arguments to each stands or falls on the fact that you
choose a "speculative reading" vs. a "literal reading" of both Jesus and
Paul in Matt. 10:1& 5; and 1Cor. 15:5 respectively, when they refer to
"The Twelve", such that ALL Twelve could not have been present at that
time of their speaking.

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (KJV) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are
fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the
apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of
due time.

To this end, what you do not have is one single Scripture that
clearly declares that Judas was literally ALWAYS a SINNER from the very
first day forwards when Jesus chose Him as one of His Twelve Apostles.
The only Scriptural support you have is speculative circumstantial
evidence that reveals Judas cited as a SINNER much latter into the
ministry of Jesus and some even as late as the Last Supper event itself.
Going forwards, you take Jn. 17:6-12 out of CONTEXT, for your reason, in
suggesting the exclusion of Judas from those who were "GIVEN" to Jesus
by His Father as quoted below... (emphasis added)

"...Since the above [Jn. 17:6-9] identifies all those "given" to our
Lord by the Father as saved, I think we need to leave Judas out of
"those You have given Me" in John 17:12 since he was not saved..."

What you have not considered and included in the context of Jn.
17:6-9 is that Jesus qualifies those whom He is praying for and why...He
was ONLY praying for those at that time that God had "given" Him that
had BELIEVED. Hence, Judas no longer believed and had returned to the
WORLD. There is no mention whatsoever that ONLY the ones that were SAVED
had been formerly "given" unto Him by His Father  ONLY that He was
praying for those that BELIEVED that had been GIVEN to Him by His
Father.

To reiterate, Jesus declares that NONE of those whom He was PRAYING
for were LOST, because they had BELIEVED and it was those that Jesus had
KEPT  the ones that willingly BELIEVED.

John 17:12 (KJV) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in
thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is
lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Therefore, nowhere in this context of Scriptures does Jesus ever
suggest that Judas was NOT GIVEN unto Him as one of the Twelve  but
simply He was ONLY praying for those who had continued to BELIEVE. As
such, Jesus reveals that NONE of those who BELIEVED were indeed LOST, of
those that God had GIVEN Him. BUT the one whom did NOT continue to
BELIEVE that God had GIVEN Him, he was LOST...Judas.

However, Jn. 18:9 makes it perfectly clear that it was not the fault
of Jesus that any of them were LOST. It was the fault of Judas himself
that he was LOST and not Jesus. Jesus KEPT those that BELIEVED. He could
not force Judas to continue to BELIEVE.

John 18:9 (KJV) That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake,
Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

Response #12:

Since scripture never pronounces Judas a believer but does call him a
thief, a devil, and the son of perdition (a title only used elsewhere of
antichrist), it is certainly at least equally "speculative" to say that
he was once saved. This is not a question of speculation but one of
interpretation. And in all such matters what is important is determining
the truth. There are ways to go about this when there is a question
about what the Bible actually says, and I have engaged in the process of
examining this question with the same hermeneutics and the same approach
I use in all my biblical studies. Some "problems" are more difficult to
solve than others, it is true, but I am confident that with faith in the
truth, with diligence of method, and with careful attention to the
guidance of the Spirit, those who knock will be answered . . . even if
it sometimes takes a bit of time and a bit of effort.

I stand by the things I have written, and consider them to be an
honest effort at interpreting the question you asked. You certainly
don't have to be worried about not agreeing with me on this  there are
very few people out there who would agree with everything found at
Ichthys, after all.

As to Matthias, I do have to correct your impression of my own
research here. I posted the article I linked on Matthias many years ago,
long before I had ever even heard that anyone might think that Judas was
"once saved".

The verse you cite, 1st Corinthians 15:5, ought to give pause, it
seems to me. Paul says that Jesus was "seen of the twelve"  but at that
point Judas was dead and the pseudo-installation of Matthias had not yet
occurred. Therefore my point about "the twelve" being a technical term
of designation for the college of the apostles is certainly well-taken.
It absolutely has to be here in 1st Corinthians 15:5 since there were
only eleven at that point but yet they are called "the twelve" even so.
But as to the fact that Paul is the twelfth alone . . .

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man (i.e., Paul) is my chosen
instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and
before the people of Israel."
Acts 9:15 NIV

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Revelation 21:14 NKJV

Paul has his name on one of the gates of New Jerusalem. Matthias does
not.

As to "you do not have is one single Scripture that clearly declares
that Judas was literally ALWAYS a SINNER", there is also no verse which
declares him a believer. We work with what scripture tells us. That is
interpretation.

As to John 17, I am perplexed that you would argue that verses from
the same chapter are not part of the same context. Our Lord is praying
"now" for the apostles who are apostles "now" and describing the
situation "now" wherein they are saved though Judas clearly was not
"now" saved. The point is that in the very same prayer where you find
the "problem" our Lord declares "I am not praying for the world, but for
those you have given me, for they are yours" (Jn.17:9). Throughout this
prayer, our Lord is praying for the apostles, and He does not make an
exception for Judas  because Judas does not belong to "them". That is
also the case in John 17:12, and that is the answer to the (only
apparent) dilemma. The adding on in that verse of the aside beginning
with "except for the son of perdition" does not mean that Judas was "one
of them" in the sense of being a believer, otherwise, all of the
statements earlier in the prayer have to apply to him too which they
clearly cannot (i.e., if he is part of "them" in verse 12, he is surely
part of "them" in the earlier verses too). This may not satisfy the test
of English language logic to the tastes of all, but it is very common in
Greek expression and in Hebrew as well to be more general about groups.
And it is not necessary to find fault with the way things are expressed
here since they are certainly clear enough to be understood. Our Lord's
prayer is for the eleven. Judas is not one of the group of the saved 
nor was he ever. And the language of John 17:12 in the broader context
of the chapter cannot be construed to mean that he was on the one hand,
and yet also be consistent in Greek usage with understanding that he was
not on the other. Since this conclusion also agrees with the other
evidence of the gospels (reviewed above and a number of times now), in
my opinion the burden of proof lies with those who want to make Judas a
believer to show how that might be so  and it is a burden to heavy to
lift.

Finally, thank you for reminding me about John 18:9:

This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I
have not lost one of those you gave me."
John 18:9 NIV

It is difficult to see how this might even possibly be true if Judas
were ever a believer. Because if he were ever a believer, he certainly
would have had to have fallen into the "given" category (as even John
17:12 would argue). The only way out of this is to accept the
hyper-Calvinistic position that apostatizing believers were never really
"elect" in the first place and so not really believers in the full sense
of the word, so that Judas would not "really have been given". If that
is accepted as true, then the question of whether or not such a person
was "ever really saved" is entirely moot, since we would have to
categorize such a person as a "not really saved believer". And that
would be true of Judas as well. If Judas were a "not really saved
believer", then I would prefer to focus on the first part of the
expression ("not really saved") and leave the second part as an entirely
incidental point. In fact, people do genuinely believe and do actually
apostatize, and scripture describes such individuals as believers for as
long as they believe. If Judas were saved, then he would have been
"given" and then would have been subsequently "lost" (so that our Lord
would have had to say phrase John 18:9 differently than He did). That
situation was theoretically possible for all of the apostles, but, in
spite of wavering as Peter did, all came through with their faith intact
 except for Judas, who never had any faith in the first place . . . as
far as it is possible to decide the matter from the scriptures in my
view.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question
#13:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your kind response. You state the following...

Paul says that Jesus was "seen of the twelve" -- but at that point
Judas was dead and the pseudo-installation of Matthias had not yet
occurred.

When Paul makes this statement regarding the seeing of the
resurrected Jesus by the Twelve he is speaking of a PAST event... By the
time Paul was making this statement Matthias had ALREADY been chosen as
one of the Twelve. Thus, Paul was simply stating a FACT that now existed
at the time of his speaking. Therefore, what did Peter say about
Matthias? Peter declared that one must be chosen who HAD BEEN a witness
of the resurrection of Jesus along with all of the other Apostles.

Acts 1:21-22 (KJV) Wherefore of these men which have companied with
us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning
from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from
us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Thus, Matthias did indeed witness the resurrection of Jesus with the
other Eleven Apostles. Therefore, Paul was correct when he declared that
Jesus was seen of the complete Twelve.

Meanwhile, you state the following:

As to "you do not have is one single Scripture that clearly declares
that Judas was literally ALWAYS a SINNER", there is also no verse which
declares him a believer. We work with what scripture tells us. That is
interpretation.

There is however a Scripture that declares Judas was once SAVED.
Matt. 10:20, from a literal reading, absent your speculation that Judas
was NOT PRESENT, reveals that Jesus taught the Twelve BEFORE sending
them forth, that God was THEIR Father - Judas included.

In summary, respective of Jn. 17:6-12 Jesus was NOT PRAYING for Judas
because he had not KEPT His Word. Jesus was praying ONLY for those that
God had GIVEN Him that were still BELIEVING (the Eleven) and had KEPT
His Word.

However, please allow me to humbly state this again, NOWHERE in the
context of those cited Passages does Jesus EVER state that the ones He
was praying for were "ALL" the ones that God had originally GIVEN Him
when He (Jesus) FIRST chose His Twelve Disciples.

John 17:6 (KJV) I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me;
and they have kept thy word.

What you are insisting upon is that the Eleven was "ALL" that God had
originally GIVEN to Jesus.

As stated, Jesus was not praying for Judas because he had not KEPT
His Word and he was LOST at that time. Hence, Jesus declared none of
THEM (ALL of those God had originally GIVEN him) is lost EXCEPT the Son
of Perdition... Judas is part of the THEM...

Many grammatical English and Theological scholars include Judas in
the THEM "exception" statement...but they equally note he was LOST.

Meanwhile, please show me the phrase "ALL" that God has GIVEN Me...in
the context of Jn. 17:6-12.

Nonetheless, when I state that your suppositions of both Matthais and
Judas are founded primarily on speculation I do have considerable cause,
especially regarding your treatment of Matt. chpt. 10 and Acts 1:23-26.

However, it has been very informative and I have taken up enough of
your gracious, patient and valuable time - and I must say I did not even
know that Paul was ever considered to be the 12th Apostle by anyone...I
have to get out more often.

Response #13:

You are very welcome. However, it seems we are continuing to plow the
same ground repeatedly on this one. I'm sorry if you can't agree with my
explanations on this, but then as I often have recourse to say this
ministry attempts to answer all questions posed on biblical subjects and
to provide expository teaching on the whole realm of biblical doctrine 
so it would be very unusual for anyone to agree with everything. I do
stand by what I have written and would be happy to discuss any new
points, should they occur to you.

I will add that as your gifts (and possibly also your personal
ministry) seem to tend toward apologetics, I would urge you not to make
use of this particular argument in trying to convince OSAS-ers of the
error of their ways. Even if it were true that Judas was once saved and
then lost (which as you certainly understand by now I personally don't
think is true), it is not obvious from scripture and flies in the face
of the most natural reading of the gospels (i.e., this would be "news"
to most people, even if you feel you have some convincing arguments).
The net effect of using Judas as an example, therefore, is likely to be
the precise opposite of what one desires (i.e., a loss of credibility on
the subject generally). Further, shaky believers who are OSAS are likely
to think or at least intuitively suppose that since they are "not nearly
as bad as Judas" they are thus incapable in being of any danger of loss
of salvation  at least as long as they don't overtly betray the Lord in
some similar way. In fact, of course, loss of salvation is all about the
dying out of one's faith. Actions of the sort of Judas' horrific
betrayal of our Lord, tend to be more of symptoms rather than the cause
(for all the dynamics of the process of
apostasy and its distinction
from the sin unto death, please see the link).

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question
#14:

Dr. Luginbill,

I have a question which concern Christ's betrayal by Judas. During his
ministry, Jesus' identity certainly wasn't shrouded in secrecy. Judas
was accompanied by a detachment of troops and officers from the chief
priests and officers, who, without his signal, may not have been readily
familiar with the Messiah, but couldn't the Lord's enemies have
authorized his arrest without Judas' cooperation? The biblical rejoinder
to my question, is, of course, because "it is written" or "For these
things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled", (that is to
say, it was prophesied or foreshadowed that is would be so in Psalm
41:9, Zechariah 11:12-13, and Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33, and Mark 14:17-21);
nevertheless, it still begs a prosaic answer to my question: Why didn't
Jesus' enemies just arrest him without the cooperation of Judas? This is
a rather odd question, to be sure, and I realize that there may not be a
logical answer.

Response #14:

On the arresting of our Lord, well, the incident took place in the dead
of night, and since everyone dressed in pretty much the same way, from
the point of view of the Jewish elite it would be very difficult to
track down the "culprit" without some sort of guide, especially in a
wooded area the exact location of which was only known precisely to
those who frequently repaired there. The Pharisees, Sadducees and rulers
probably expected our Lord to "run for it" if they tried to capture Him
in this way, and without help to find the exact place and identify Him
specifically amongst a crowd in the dark, no doubt feared that He would
escape. Naturally, they were wrong about this just as they were wrong
about everything else.

Question
#15:

What is the meaning of this verse?

"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man, My
Associate," Declares the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may
be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones.
Zechariah 13:7 NASB

Response #15:

This is a prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah, and that is why
the second part is quoted by our Lord in anticipation of the temporary
scattering of His disciples preceding the cross (Matt.26:31).

Question
#16:

One more question on Zechariah 13:7. You explained that this is a
prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah, quoted by our Lord. What I
would like to understand is the wording. Am I correct to assume that
this words are spoken by God the Father, as the first line could
suggest? What is the 'sword' ('O sword')? Am I correct to understand the
sword in the following way:

Since our Lord was betrayed by Judas, God the Father has so arranged
the history in His perfect plan that Judas would appear at a specific
time and in a specific space so as to betray our Lord, which would mean
that 'O sword' is the Father using the devil and those who serve him,
for His own perfect purpose. Please explain and correct where me where
needed.

Response #16:

I would take the sword as symbolic of the last sufferings of Christ
generally from the time He and the disciples reached the garden of
Gethsemane and He was arrested.

Question
#17:

Could you please clarify what is meant by 'And I will turn My hand
against the little ones'?

Response #17:

I believe this refers to the persecution of the "sheep" once the
Shepherd is no longer around to protect them (which will thus have an
immediate fulfillment in the pursuit of the disciples, but also continue
to be applicable to the Church until Jesus' return, especially during
the Tribulation).

Question
#18:

Regarding Zechariah 13:7, I understand the point you make here, although
I am not clear as to why first person is used ('I will turn My hand
against the little ones', as if it was the devil speaking here).

Response #18:

This whole passage portrays the Lord as the Agent of all that happens.
Clearly He is in that nothing can happen in history without His allowing
it to happen  and without having first entered it into the divine
decree of all that would happen. So this applies to the Lord as the
Ultimate Agent of all things, whereas in physical terms the Pharisees
and their soldiers were the lesser agents, induced no doubt by demons,
acting at the behest of Satan, with the permission of God, to fulfill
every aspect of His Plan. In terms of this passage's applicability to
the Tribulation, believers will then be the objects of this sort of
attack, carried out by minions of antichrist, at the beast's behest,
motivated by his father the devil, in accordance with the Plan of God
and the Will of God without anything untoward occurring to them/us
unless it be for the good in every way (even though it may well be hard
to see it that way at the time).

Question
#19:

Could you please clarify John 13:26-30. Verse 28th says: "Now no one
of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this
to him". How is this possible, if verse 26th says: "Jesus then answered,
'That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.' So
when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of
Simon Iscariot."

Did the rest of the disciples not see Jesus give the morsel to Judas?

Also, you wrote: The disciples had a common purse (which Judas
kept, Jn.12:6; and which was used to buy necessities such as the
requirements of the Passover: Jn.13:29). Verse 29th starts with:
'For some were supposing' - so I'm not sure, whether Jesus actually said
the words: "Buy the things we have need of for the feast", or was this
sentence by our Lord not said, but only supposed to be said by some.

Response #19:

This first part is a question I get quite a bit. You are certainly
correct that it seems impossible for the disciples not to have put it
together. My understanding of this is that Judas was the perfect
self-righteous unbeliever, the type of person who is whitewashed so well
(hiding his/her real sins) that he is the last person anyone would ever
suspect of any sort of wrong-doing. Judas must have been such a
"goody-goody" to all appearances that the other disciples assumed, as
scripture says, that he left for some other purpose  despite what our
Lord had just said. This is not the first time that the disciples proved
to be slow on the uptake.

As to your second question, this is what the disciples supposed only
(not what was actually happening).

Question
#20:

Regarding the dipping of the morsel and the words which disciples
thought that our Lord said you wrote "this is not the first time that
the disciples proved to be slow on the uptake" and "this is what
they supposed only." You also said that 'it seems impossible for
the disciples not to have put it together' and at the same time they
were supposing that our Lord said to him words which he didn't say -
could you clarify?

Response #20:

What I mean is that they should have "put two and two together" and not
have made some false assumption for which there was no basis. They must
not have wanted even to think that Judas was the culprit. I suppose we
are all going to face this sort of dilemma in the very near future.
Scripture is very clear that those closest to us will often be the ones
who betray us for our faith in Christ during the soon to come
Great
Persecution (see the link).

Question
#21:

Could you explain to me the causal relationship between believing in
our Lord, and the Romans coming and taking away Pharisees' place and the
whole nation?

John 11:48: "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in
Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our
nation."

Response #21:

The religious leaders are afraid that all will believe in Jesus unless
they kill Him (unlikely, in my view, since even today so few do). Their
fear was that if the whole nation proclaimed Him king (which thing in
fact He refused to allow: Jn.6:15; and made it clear that He had not
come to assume temporal authority at this time: Matt.22:21), that the
Romans would see it as a revolt and destroy the nation or at least its
current power structure, namely, them. Of course if they thought Jesus
really were the Messiah, they would know that He could handle the Romans
or anything else. They do not believe, and by "believe" here they mean
"be tricked into thinking".

Question
#22:

You wrote: We have suggested above that our Lord "saved up" for this
ministry, and we probably see an example of this in the colt provided
for His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" (i.e., our Lord
had no doubt provided for this necessity ahead of time in order to
fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9; cf. Matt.21:1-7). Do you
think then that the disciples paid for the donkey, even though it's not
been specified?

Response #22:

My guess is that our Lord Jesus paid for it (or rented it) out of what
was left of His own private resources, and that this is why the
disciples were allowed to take it when they came for it.

Question
#23:

Mark 14:57-58: Some stood up and began to give false testimony
against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple
made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without
hands."

Why is this testimony false? Is it because our Lord didn't say it
would be Him who would destroy the temple, but rather the Jews? As in
John 2:19:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up."
John 2:19 NASB

Response #23:

Just as "this Rock" is Jesus, not Peter, so "this temple" is His body,
not the temple per se ("But the temple he had spoken of was his body"
Jn.2:21 NIV). But to the point of your question, consider Mark 14:59 NIV:
"Yet even then their testimony did not agree". So we do not have the
full report of all the false testimony they gave against our Lord. I
think it is part of the picture here that these false witnesses were
gathered for the express purpose of condemning our Lord and they were
only too happy to do so (and based upon Judas' experience it seems not
unreasonable to suppose that they were paid for it). So it is not as if
these individuals are honest and determined only to tell the truth;
rather they are willing to say anything necessary to see Jesus
condemned. That would certainly make a person a "false witness" in my
book, even if as is usually the case that in the course of their
testimony they accidentally quoted something accurately. After all, it
is very clear that they understood Jesus incorrectly so that their
representation of the quotation is objectively false: Jesus did not
actually say "I will destroy this temple"; what He said was "[if you]
Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days". So they were
literally incorrect as well.

Question
#24:

Could you please clarify the words of Caiaphas and what was the motive
behind him speaking them:

(49) Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was
high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! (50) You do
not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people
than that the whole nation perish.

Response #24:

Caiaphas' motive was to induce the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus, but in doing
so he unwittingly gave an accurate prophecy of the substitutionary death
of our Lord for all Israel (and all mankind).

Question
#25:

You wrote:
but the other disciples apparently suspected him least of
all as we can surely discern from the fact that he does not even come
under suspicion even after our Lord gives John and Peter such a clear
sign in the dipping of the sop (Jn.13:26-28), and then essentially names
him in response to his question "Is it I?": "You have said [yourself]"
(Matt.26:23-25).

Some translations of the passage from Matthew say: "Surely it is not
I, Rabbi?" (NASB) instead of "Is it I"?

Regarding the same question by Judas - what was the purpose of it?
Was it aimed at clouding the vision of other disciples? Or was Judas so
lost by then that he was lying to himself about his betrayal?

Response #25:

The versions go both ways. What I like this first rendering you quote of
meti ego eimi is that it brings out Judas as being in the posture
of pretending he knows nothing at all about the matter instead of asking
a simple question. Judas is trying to deflect attention. The others all
asked this question. He was probably nervous about the prospect of being
conspicuously the only one who didn't. That fact argues against "surely
not" (which may be a little to strong in any case). The adverb meti
is usually emphatic rather than necessarily suggesting a negative
answer. The problem is bringing all this out in the English effectively.
Maybe, "Is it ME?" is closest to representing the
posturing and indignation meant to deflect attention.

Question
#26:

You wrote: Immediately upon entering Jerusalem that first day, our
Lord went up to the temple mount and swept the court of the gentiles
clean of the commercial enterprises that had turned the worship of God
into a human system of monetary transactions, exactly as He had also
done at the beginning of His earthly ministry (Matt.21:12-13;
Mk.11:15-18; Lk.19:45-48; cf. Jn.2:13-22).

a) Why did you write 'that first day'?

b) You wrote: 'exactly as He had also done at the beginning of His
earthly ministry', but don't these passages refer to the same event
you're describing?

Response #26:

a) I mean the "first day" of passion week.

b) Jesus cleared the temple twice: once at the beginning of His three
and a half year ministry, and once during passion week.
John 2:15 refers to our Lord's previous clearing of the temple (that is
why it is "cf.-ed" instead of offered as a direct parallel).

Question
#27:

Could you please clarify on Psalm 55:12-15; do these verses refer to
Judas? If so, why do they say: 'a man my equal', 'my companion and my
familiar friend'? Also Psalm 69:4: "What I did not steal, I then have to
restore."

Response #27:

Yes, this is prophetic of Judas and his betrayal. NIV has for the
verse you ask about: "But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend", and I find that to be an acceptable and
preferable translation of the Hebrew ce'erchi (כְּעֶרְכִּי). As
to Psalm 69:4, I'm not sure precisely what David is referring to. He
underwent many troubles in his life, after all. If this is meant to be
Messianic, perhaps our Lord's being deprived of all He possessed on the
cross is the best reference.

Question
#28:

In the footnote no.70 you wrote: 70. i.e., rabbi, or "Rabbi",
meaning, "my great one", precisely the greeting our Lord has told the
disciples not to use for each other (Matt.23:28), but one Judas was
apparently fond of using for Jesus, clearly part of his deceptive modus
operandi of flattery he didn't really mean (Matt.26:25). Did you
mean Matt 23:8 instead of 23:28? Also, Matt 23:8 says that there is 'one
teacher', so wouldn't the usage of 'Rabbi' be warranted towards Jesus?

Response #28:

"Rabbi" means, literally, "my great one", and only "my teacher" by later
extension.

Question
#29:

One more question regarding this footnote. You say that our Lord told
His disciples not to use the greeting "Rabbi" towards each other, but
does it apply to Himself also? Isn't He the 'one teacher' to whom it
applies? I understand that the problem here is that Judas didn't mean
it, I just wanted to be clear as to whether it was lawful to use this
greeting towards our Lord, since you make a point that Jesus told the
disciples not to use it.

Response #29:

It's a good point. While sometimes "Rabbi" is used for our Lord in
neutral circumstances, it most often turns up where those using it are
trying to cover up some personal inconsistencies (e.g., Peter at Mk.9:5;
Nicodemus at Jn.3:2; cf. Matt.23:7), and I think that is definitely true
in Judas' case.